DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

PARIS TSIRNIKAS,

Appellee.

No. 2D22-3539

February 23, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Keith Meyer, Judge.

Andrew A. Labbe of Groelle & Salmon, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Charles M. Schropp of Schropp Law Firm, P.A., Tampa; James J. 

Dowling of James J. Dowling, P.A., Tarpon Springs; and Jerry 

Theophilopoulos of Theophilopoulos Law, P.A., Tarpon Springs, for 

Appellee.

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company appeals a final 

judgment entered in favor of Paris Tsirnikas following a jury trial. Ms. 

Tsirnikas sued Universal asserting that she had a homeowners 

insurance policy with Universal and that Universal breached the 
2

insurance contract by refusing to cover the damage to her property. 

Among the defenses asserted by Universal, it claimed that the damages 

were not covered by the terms of the insurance policy. Although the jury 

found that Universal had established that the loss was not covered by 

the policy, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Ms. Tsirnikas. 

Because the final judgment should have been entered in favor of 

Universal, we reverse.

I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

In her amended complaint, Ms. Tsirnikas alleged one claim for 

breach of contract. She asserted that Universal had issued a 

homeowners insurance policy to her that covered her dock and, when the 

dock suffered damage, Universal breached the insurance contract by 

refusing to cover the loss. 

The case proceeded to trial, and the jury answered the following six 

questions on the verdict form as follows: 

1. Did Plaintiffs, Paris Tsirnikas and John Tsirnikas,1

fail to provide the documentation they were required to 

provide prior to receiving the denial letter, dated February, 

12, 2018?

YES_____ NO ___√___

2. Did Plaintiffs, Paris Tsirnikas and John Tsirnikas, 

fail to provide the documentation they were required to 

provide prior to filing the lawsuit?

YES_____ NO ___√___

3. Did Plaintiff, Paris Tsirnikas, establish by the 

greater weight of the evidence the dock is covered property?

YES___√___ NO ______

If your answer to question 3 is NO, your verdict is for 

the Defendant and you should not proceed further, except to 

1 John Tsirnikas was originally a plaintiff in the lawsuit, but he 

passed away when the suit was pending in the trial court. 
3

date and sign this verdict form and return it to the 

courtroom. If you answered YES to question 3, please answer 

question 4.

4. Did Plaintiff, Paris Tsirnikas, establish by the 

greater weight of the evidence the dock sustained a direct 

physical loss on November 24, 2017?

YES___√___ NO ______

If your answer to question 4 is NO, your verdict is for 

the Defendant and you should not proceed further, except to 

date and sign this verdict form and return it to the 

courtroom. If you answered YES to question 4, please answer 

question 5.

5. Did the Defendant establish by the greater weight 

of the evidence that the alleged damage to the dock was the 

result of an excepted and/or excluded cause of loss?

YES___√___ NO ______

6. What is the cost to repair the dock at actual cash value? 

TOTAL $9,400

During discussions pertaining to the fifth question, the trial court 

stated its intention to leave out language that an affirmative answer 

would be a verdict for Universal. The attorney for Universal asked the 

court, "So if the defendant proves an exclusion they don't -- it's not a 

finding for defendant?" The trial court responded, "It is a finding for 

defendant but the Court enforces the finding. This is an interrogatory 

verdict form." 

Regarding actual cash value, the trial court instructed the jury, 

"Actual Cash Value Calculation. Damage to covered structures, other 

than screened enclosures, that are not buildings, shall be calculated at

actual cash value, meaning the actual cash value of a loss to covered 

property that was actually damaged by a covered loss, less recoverable 

depreciation." After returning the verdict to the trial court, no inquiry 
4

was made of the jurors concerning the verdict form, and they were 

permitted to leave.

Before the final judgment was entered, Universal filed a 

"Defendant's Motion for Remittitur to Reduce the Jury's Damage 

Calculation to Zero Dollars." The motion noted that the jurors had asked 

the trial court if they were to decide how much compensation for Ms. 

Tsirnikas. The trial court answered this question by instructing the jury, 

"you are to follow the instructions on the verdict form." 

In its motion for remittitur, Universal argued that in rendering its 

verdict, the jury was simply following the instructions set forth on the 

verdict form, which required it to make a determination as to the cost to 

repair the dock at actual cash value, even after the jury determined that 

Universal established that the damage to the dock was the result of an 

excepted and/or excluded cause of loss. The motion noted that the jury 

had determined that $9,400 was the actual cash value to repair the 

dock, but it were not asked to, and did not, determine that $9,400 was 

owed to Ms. Tsirnikas by Universal.

The trial court entered final judgment in favor of Ms. Tsirnikas, 

ruling that, "[b]ased on the Jury's Verdict, Final Judgment is entered 

against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff for $9,400.00 for which let 

execution issue."

II. ANALYSIS

We begin by observing that a "jury cannot be faulted for doing 

exactly what it was instructed to do." Plana v. Sainz, 990 So. 2d 554, 

557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Ms. Tsirnikas argues on appeal that the jury 

rendered an inconsistent verdict and that Universal was required to raise 

an objection to the inconsistent verdict before the jury was discharged. 

See Francis-Harbin v. Sensormatic Elecs., LLC, 254 So. 3d 523, 525 (Fla. 
5

3d DCA 2018) ("Because only the empaneled jury can correct such a 

verdict, a party wishing to contest a legally inconsistent verdict must 

raise the issue with the trial court before the jury is discharged, and the 

failure to do so results in a waiver." (citing Coba v. Tricam Indus., Inc., 

164 So. 3d 637, 649 (Fla. 2015))). We conclude that the jury's verdict 

was not inconsistent and that the trial court erred in entering final 

judgment in favor of Ms. Tsirnikas after the jury found that the damage 

to the dock was the result of an excepted and/or excluded cause of loss.

A. The verdict was not inconsistent.

A legally inconsistent verdict is defined as "one which contains two 

or more findings which, as a matter of law, cannot co-exist." Id. A 

verdict of no liability that also awards damages "is not an inconsistent 

verdict in the sense that an objection must be raised by the defendant 

when the jury returns the verdict," but "as a matter of law a judgment for 

damages cannot be entered where there is no finding of liability." 

Oliveira v. Ilion Taxi Aero LTDA, 830 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Here, we must determine whether the jury's responses to questions 

five and six create an inconsistent verdict. Ms. Tsirnikas contends that 

the jury instruction on actual cost supports the jury's finding to question 

six and is inconsistent with the answer to question five. While this 

contention has some persuasive force, we do not find it dispositive. 

Although the jury instruction contains language that "actual cash value 

of a loss to covered property that was actually damaged by a covered 

cause of loss," there is no mirror language in question six. (Emphasis 

added.) Question six presents a limited inquiry directed to a factual, not 

a factual and legal, matter. It only asks the jury to identify the cost to 

repair the dock at actual cash value. It does not, on its face, assign 

liability to Universal for the cost of repair. It also does not ask the jury to 
6

determine the amount of damages that are owed to Ms. Tsirnikas under 

the policy. We look only to the language appearing on the face of the 

verdict form, and we conclude that the verdict of no liability is not 

inconsistent with the jury's factual determination regarding how much it 

would cost to repair the dock.

B. The trial court improperly entered a judgment for damages in favor of 

Ms. Tsirnikas when the jury verdict found that Universal was not 

contractually liable for the loss.

The jury's answer to question five is a determination of no 

contractual liability on the part of Universal, and therefore, the trial 

court should have entered the final judgment in favor of Universal. This 

case is similar to Alvarez v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co., 305 So. 3d 

5, 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), where the jury found that the homeowners had 

materially misrepresented the facts by exaggerating the extent of their 

loss, and the jury also awarded the homeowners $6,000. The Third 

District held that the jury's award of damages did not alter the outcome 

of the appeal because "[a]s a matter of law, the finding of material 

misrepresentation voids coverage for the claim." Id. The Third District 

further held that "[t]he trial court properly determined as a matter of law 

that the jury's verdict finding material misrepresentation voided the 

Homeowners' coverage for the claimed loss, and correctly rendered 

judgment in favor of State Farm with no entitlement to damages." Id. at 

9.

As noted above, question five on the verdict form in this case 

provides a factual and legal resolution to Universal's affirmative defense. 

By answering this question in the affirmative, the jury found that 

because the damage was an excepted cause of loss, an excluded cause of 

loss, or both, Universal had prevailed. Because there was no liability 

under the insurance contract, it follows that no damages could be 
7

assessed or awarded against Universal. As this was the verdict, the jury 

had no need to proceed to question six. Arguably, because of the lack of 

instruction found on the verdict form following question five and the trial 

court's answer to the jury's question, the jury answered question six. 

The trial court had noted during trial that, if Universal proves an 

exclusion, "[i]t is a finding for defendant but the Court enforces the 

finding." Nonetheless, when the jury found that Universal proved its 

affirmative defense, the trial court failed to enforce that finding. 

III. CONCLUSION

Having made a degree of order from the chaos surrounding the 

jury's verdict, we reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court 

to enter judgment in favor of Universal. 

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.